MAHAJAN GENERAL STORE Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant-petitioners have challenged order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar declining their prayer for amendment of the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code').

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the landlord-respondents had sought ejectment of the tenant-petitioners on various grounds by filing an application on 6.4.1994. The tenant-petitioners appeared and tendered the rent. They also filed the written statement. However, they started absenting from proceedings from 6.10.1995. The Rent Controller recorded ex parte evidence of the landlord-respondents and ordered ejectment of the tenant- petitioners on 26.2.1997. Against the order of ejectment, an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was filed on 15.3.1997. Thereafter, on 16.5.1999 an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code was filed in which prayer was made for substituting the grounds pleaded in the application. It is appropriate to mention that in another application also, the tenant- petitioners had absented and the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was allowed by imposing a costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Coming back to the present case, the application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller by passing the impugned order, the operative part of which reads as under :-

(3.) MR . B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent-caveators has pointed out that the tenant-petitioners have been harassing the landlord-respondents by repeatedly absenting from the proceedings and in fact wish to buy time so that no final adjudication on the application for ejectment could take place. Learned counsel had pointed out that in order dated 6.10.1998 (Annexure P-3), the finding recorded is that the tenant-petitioner was suffering from conjunctivitis and not that he was not served. The tenant-petitioners were proceeded ex parte and the service was held to be good service. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the landlord-respondents are being harassed at the hands of the tenant-petitioners.